According to a recent article in the New York Times, the proponents of the CHSRP are pushing on in spite of significant headwinds. Amongst them is a revised estimated cost of the project, which now stands at $98 billion before financing charges. This is up from an original estimate of $38 billion, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The estimated completion date for the total project, which will consist of approximately 520 miles of rail line, is 2033.
Assuming the project is financed for 30 years at an average rate of 4%, compounded monthly, which will be difficult to attain, the project will cost approximately $167 billion. Given California's low bond rating (A- on GO Bonds and BBB+ on the state's appropriation-backed lease revenue bonds), the project sponsors will be lucky to obtain financing at 4%, unless they can attract a significant amount of private capital, which they have been unsuccessful in doing. In fact, outside of the initial commitment from the California voters for $9 billion in state bonds, as well as approximately $3 billion in ARRA funds, the sources for the monies required to complete the project is unclear.
The latest estimates claim that the running time between LAX and SFO, presumably for the fastest trains, will be 2 hours and 38 minutes. This assumes relatively high speed running in the congested suburbs of LAX and SFO. The current average flying time from LAX to SFO is 1 hour and 15 minutes. The project sponsors appear to be comparing the train time to the estimated driving time. No comparison was offered between the train time and the flying time, which is on average 1 hour and 23 minutes slower than flying.
The project is being challenged by some legislators, as well as county commissioners and city council persons, who believe that it will be an ongoing financial albatross. In a May 2011 report the proponents acknowledged that the operating deficit for the project could be as much as $1 billion per year, which is nearly equal to Amtrak's annual operating shortfall. The project is also being challenged by farmers in the Valley, where the first miles of track will be laid.
Justification for the project is predicated on the premise that the CHSRP is a better alternative than expanding the highway and airway systems. The proponents also claim that the project will create more than 100,000 jobs, which certainly has a strong political appeal in the current environment.
Planners need to get better at estimating costs 20 years in the future because it will take that long to slog through all the mandated studies, hearings, changes after the hearings, and paperwork and settle all the NIMBY lawsuits so they can actually start construction.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
One point that stood out to me is that they plan to start construction in the middle of nowhere so that, politically, it will be finished to at least two major cities, and it will avoid most NIMBY complaints. Nobody wants an island of abandoned, expensive railway in the middle of nowhere.
The article can be read here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/us/california-rail-project-advances-amid-cries-of-boondoggle.html
Wow! From $38 billion to $98 billion in cost estimates before the first shovel is turned! That increase is rather, well, breathtaking. One can only wonder what it might really turn out to be.
Dakguy201 Wow! From $38 billion to $98 billion in cost estimates before the first shovel is turned! That increase is rather, well, breathtaking. One can only wonder what it might really turn out to be.
Last year I read a study by a British professor. He studied somewhere between 50 and 75 major construction projects, i.e. airports, power plants, rail systems, etc. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the report or the professor, although I think he was at the University of Edinburgh. In any case, one of his conclusions was that most major construction projects run over the budget, i.e. cost and time. The longer the time frame for a project, the greater the overruns, if I remember correctly.
I worked in the electric utility industry for most of my working life. I was directly or indirectly involved in the construction of several power plants. Included in the mix was a nuclear plant. None of them came in on time or within the original cost estimates. This was especially true for the nuclear plant.
What would bother me about the CHSRP, if I lived and paid taxes in California, is not only the cost of the project, but the annual operating subsidy. Shelling out a billion dollars a year to cover the gap between operating revenues and expenses is mind blowing.
Part of the problem here is that they have to build the whole line from terminal to terminal. They can't use the French or German model of building only in the rural areas where it is fairly cheap in terms of dollars spent per minutes saved, using the existing track network in the urban areas. Existing FRA regs make doing this nearly impossible. It would be very difficult to built a 220 mph trainset that would withstand FRA collision and buff standards.
It probably is reasonable to compare train to auto rather than air. Apparently, in France at least, they assign value to the slots on the infrastructure based on how much traffic it will remove from the highway. This is partly why it is difficult for freight operators in Europe A single passenger train might be worth one lane-hour (about 2000 vehicles) whereas a freight train would only remove about 50 trucks.
Also, don't forget to crank in the 2 hours dwell at the airport vs. 20-30 minutes a the origin train station into the overall trip times.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Would it make more sense to purchase the former SP line that parallels the Pacific Coast and make that
a higher speed route rather than high speed? It would cost less and give the same benefit, albeit at a
lesser speed.
A. McIntosh Would it make more sense to purchase the former SP line that parallels the Pacific Coast and make that a higher speed route rather than high speed? It would cost less and give the same benefit, albeit at a lesser speed.
But, I don't know if the alignment would be all that suitable for higher speeds, and there is the climb over the Pacific Coast Range to deal with. I think it would be better to build new out of LA to the Central Valley on a high speed alignment, upgrade the existing Central Valley route to higher speeds and spend some bucks on the existing slow speed segments of the route (like a new alignment thru La Jolla to San Diego) to get the best bang for the buck initially. Then work your way up to electrification and high speed along the whole route. Use that as leverage to squeeze the FRA into allowing light weight high speed train-sets in mixed operation in LA and SF.
The benefits of doing it this way is you gain the benefit of the money spend incrementally and immediately. You don't have to wait until the whole thing is built before you start offering single seat rides between the end points.
Don,
I would count on both UP and BNSF protecting their property through the Central Valley as these are both very important main lines. The former SP line south of Tracy is probably available, abandoned IIRC.
I recall that the HSR advocates/promoters want to come over the Coast Range somewhere south of San Jose, which would be roughly parallel with the charter route of the Southern Pacific that was never constructed. These mountains are not particularly high but they are steep with steep walled canyons. First cost here is why SP never built there.
Mac
For California High Speed Rail is cheaper than trying to expand I-5 & SR 99 the 2 main north south freeways in the Central Valley Bakersfield to Sacramento. This is one of the main reasons for state support of the San Joaquins. Also the start of Capitol trains. Again cheaper than trying to expand I-80.
In the case of the Capitols the public response to the service created an enviroment were high speed rail was something to give serious consideration.
Rgds IGN
PNWRMNM Don, I would count on both UP and BNSF protecting their property through the Central Valley as these are both very important main lines. The former SP line south of Tracy is probably available, abandoned IIRC. I recall that the HSR advocates/promoters want to come over the Coast Range somewhere south of San Jose, which would be roughly parallel with the charter route of the Southern Pacific that was never constructed. These mountains are not particularly high but they are steep with steep walled canyons. First cost here is why SP never built there. Mac
I could see the UP being a definite stumbling block, but you could probably do some sort of deal with BNSF. I could see something along the lines of an integrated second track along the same ROW but offset, built to 110 mph, but with alignment good for 220 mph. Just flop the existing San Joaquins over as you build. With a high speed alignment from the south end of the route toward LA, you could run some seriously auto-competitive service without losing your shirt - and get it going in years instead of decades. Next step, electrify. Next step after that, build second 220 mph track (or at least some long sidings) and separate from BNSF. Buy high speed light weight trainsets, get waiver for limited mixed operation in LA and SF area and go for 220 mph.
All this project needs is a credible "go-get-'em" champion and some dedicated funding. If the goal is to avoid building new freeway lanes, then a dedicated fuel tax might be the solution.
oltmannd Mac I could see the UP being a definite stumbling block, but you could probably do some sort of deal with BNSF. I could see something along the lines of an integrated second track along the same ROW but offset, built to 110 mph, but with alignment good for 220 mph. Just flop the existing San Joaquins over as you build. With a high speed alignment from the south end of the route toward LA, you could run some seriously auto-competitive service without losing your shirt - and get it going in years instead of decades. Next step, electrify. Next step after that, build second 220 mph track (or at least some long sidings) and separate from BNSF. Buy high speed light weight trainsets, get waiver for limited mixed operation in LA and SF area and go for 220 mph. All this project needs is a credible "go-get-'em" champion and some dedicated funding. If the goal is to avoid building new freeway lanes, then a dedicated fuel tax might be the solution.
MAC: Don IMHO is directly on the spot about the benefits of building as CA HSR authority has proposed. To use an example here in the south the building of the Interstates in rural areas first were very important. I-75 was built from south of Macon to the Sunshine Parkway Tollway at Wildwood Florida. That segment cut travel time almost 6 hours and really opened up the Florida market especially when Disney world was proposed and built in Orlando.
The first construction segment will cut travel time by over an hour the Bakersfield - Oakland route. That route segment becomes a less than 5 hour trip which competes with automobile traffic. Once the Bakersfield - Stockton HSR portion is complete then travel time on that segment non stop will be cut from 4:45 to 2:00 non electric. Definitely auto competetive. BFD - OAK based on present schedules 3:26. Once electrification is complete BFD - SKN then another hour off the schedule. This is all assuming that the end points LAX - BFD and SKN - OAK not constructed yet.
DON has not addressed the problem of change from electric - diesel but the ALP-45DPs that NJ Transit has started using may be a good interim answer.
We do not know how well the ALP45s are working and what teething problems have to be addressed but may have some answers soon. Although the present ALP-45DPs only have a top speed of 125 electric there may be ways to increase its top speed to 160 - 180 MPH ? The other problem will be to increase its fuel capacity ( gross weight ) sufficiently to enable an unrefueled RT ? Remember that all new single level, Bi-level car, high acceleration diesels, & the AMCS-64 specifications require 125 MPH certifications so they can fit in very well as an interim rolling stock.
Just as the interstates were last completed in urban areas the HSR should do the same. Switching onto present current urban routes should be well received. With PTC still being required by 2015 some incremental speed increases may be possible before dedicated routes are built.
Henry6 and Phoebe Vet both state very well how frequent on time service will be well received by the traveliing public. Hopefully this will be the case for the interim construction of the CA HSR ?
Streak,
I do not dispute Don's order of construction.
You and he both seem to think that the HSR can simply glom onto busy and important UP and BNSF freight main lines when it suits their fancy. I think that UP and BNSF will fight to the death any such interfearence with (taking of) their property. Simply put, there is no benefit to them, but lots of risk, in having anything to do with HSR.
PNWRMNM Streak, You and he both seem to think that the HSR can simply glom onto busy and important UP and BNSF freight main lines when it suits their fancy. Mac
You and he both seem to think that the HSR can simply glom onto busy and important UP and BNSF freight main lines when it suits their fancy.
I cannot speak for DON but in no way can I see using UP & BNSF tracks for anything other than 90 - 110 MPH trains much like is being planned for the CHI - STL line. That only on lines that can support the extra passenger traffic with maybe additional sidings or double track. Probably as HSR segments are completed; connections to present tracks may work as new trains may replace existing San Joaquin service ? Use of the ROW for dedicated HSR lines is another thing. With at least 50 ft separation of tracks there shoould be enough separation. Of course any industries that may be on the HSR side will require a freight flyover to be built.
Neither Class I would ever allow any HSR on their ROW or in close proximity without a major court battle. If a freight train collided with a HSR passenger train the resultant PR blackeye would predominantly accrue to BNSF/UP. The result of just that outcome is PTC and it's rapid deployment legislated by congress due to an unobservant and distracted Metrolink operator. Just think of a 200 mph HSR train colliding with a refer or intermodal train. It would be ugly. Organizations like the CHSR Commission and others just keep planning in a vacuum without really considering Class I issues and history. They haven't been in business this long because they're not good at it. They say to never say never, but in this case, I would.
oltmannd I could see the UP being a definite stumbling block, but you could probably do some sort of deal with BNSF. I could see something along the lines of an integrated second track along the same ROW but offset, built to 110 mph, but with alignment good for 220 mph. Just flop the existing San Joaquins over as you build. With a high speed alignment from the south end of the route toward LA, you could run some seriously auto-competitive service without losing your shirt - and get it going in years instead of decades. Next step, electrify. Next step after that, build second 220 mph track (or at least some long sidings) and separate from BNSF. Buy high speed light weight trainsets, get waiver for limited mixed operation in LA and SF area and go for 220 mph.
But Don, that would be practical.
I am thinking is that the problem is nothing to do with the rail mode or with HSR or with trains. The problem is that this project is pure unadulterated California Moon-bat-edness.
Take the 220 MPH. Please. Someone can fill me in on whether anyone in all of these countries that we are supposed to be envious of is operating on a regular basis at 220 MPH. I hear that China has backed off on their max speed somewhat, presumably as an informed economic decision, of trading some reduction in speed for longer-lasting track, less need for wheel maintenance, whatever.
Then consider that California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site, where you can specify your travel endpoints and determine your trip times and how much you are doing to prevent CO2 emissions. Pure, unadulterated made-up stuff. You are not going to go a constant 220 MPH endpoint-to-endpoint. You need time to accelerate and brake the train, you are going to have restricted speed in the urban areas. As to the CO2 saving that are in excess of the CO2 output of a fuel-efficient modern car -- just simply made up.
Continue on to the propaganda films, such as the animated clip of the California HSR zipping along with its "Fly California" logo (no, you are not flying, you are on a train, and that is the whole point that you don't have to deal with airports, but I guess flying is "kewl"), with churning windmill generators in the background.
You may have HSR, and you may have windmills in California, but unless they are willing to keep the trainsets "in port" during calm conditions as they did with the old clipper ships, you are simply not going to power an on-demand electric train with a generate-the-power-when-the-wind-is-strong-enough windmill.
There may be a place (yet) for HSR in the U.S. and HSR may even be able to alleviate (some) need for highway lanes. But what I am telling you it is not the idea of a train or a high-speed train. It is the complete disconnect from physical reality and the total misrepresentation of the performance of the thing that has me going.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
NorCalguy Neither Class I would ever allow any HSR on their ROW or in close proximity without a major court battle. If a freight train collided with a HSR passenger train the resultant PR blackeye would predominantly accrue to BNSF/UP. The result of just that outcome is PTC and it's rapid deployment legislated by congress due to an unobservant and distracted Metrolink operator. Just think of a 200 mph HSR train colliding with a refer or intermodal train. It would be ugly. Organizations like the CHSR Commission and others just keep planning in a vacuum without really considering Class I issues and history. They haven't been in business this long because they're not good at it. They say to never say never, but in this case, I would.
CSX wants 30 ft of separation for 110 mph operation within their ROW. I was thinking 100 ft or so ought to be acceptable for HSR.
As you built the stretches of new track, you'd run the 110 mph diesel hauled trains there and use some number of limited crossovers to the existing track for meets. Trains on the existing track would still only be allowed 79 mph.
Once you had the whole route built, you'd go for your FRA wavier for LA and SF, but the high speed trainsets, sever the crossovers to the freight track, and away you go at 220.
CHSR needs to steal a top guy from a class one to head this thing up.
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd: I could see the UP being a definite stumbling block, but you could probably do some sort of deal with BNSF. I could see something along the lines of an integrated second track along the same ROW but offset, built to 110 mph, but with alignment good for 220 mph. Just flop the existing San Joaquins over as you build. With a high speed alignment from the south end of the route toward LA, you could run some seriously auto-competitive service without losing your shirt - and get it going in years instead of decades. Next step, electrify. Next step after that, build second 220 mph track (or at least some long sidings) and separate from BNSF. Buy high speed light weight trainsets, get waiver for limited mixed operation in LA and SF area and go for 220 mph. But Don, that would be practical. I am thinking is that the problem is nothing to do with the rail mode or with HSR or with trains. The problem is that this project is pure unadulterated California Moon-bat-edness. Take the 220 MPH. Please.
oltmannd: I could see the UP being a definite stumbling block, but you could probably do some sort of deal with BNSF. I could see something along the lines of an integrated second track along the same ROW but offset, built to 110 mph, but with alignment good for 220 mph. Just flop the existing San Joaquins over as you build. With a high speed alignment from the south end of the route toward LA, you could run some seriously auto-competitive service without losing your shirt - and get it going in years instead of decades. Next step, electrify. Next step after that, build second 220 mph track (or at least some long sidings) and separate from BNSF. Buy high speed light weight trainsets, get waiver for limited mixed operation in LA and SF area and go for 220 mph.
Take the 220 MPH. Please.
Double rainbow! All the way!
Crawl, walk, trot, then run. By then, someone will have figured out if 220 mph is really practical or not. 220 mph vs 185 mph? Does it REALLY make any difference? They might find out that 110 works well enough.
The really hard, expensive part is going to be the land-taking in the urban areas for the separate set of tracks these trains will need. Ooh, another double rainbow!
Quick reality check. Most of the rights of way that I know of west of the Mississippi River are 100 feet wide. You can get three tracks between the main and the property line on the 50' you have on each side. Your outside track will be about 43' from the main. Industry can build to your propertly line and load and unload rail cars with just a bridge plate. In urban areas, where the expensive real estate is, there is no place to put a double track HST main even if the railroad and its customers were willing to commit economic suicide for you. Freight flyovers are a physical impossibility unless you start them in the next town.
Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. I experienced this at Anapra NM one time. Assuming a 100 foot railroad right of way, HSR would need a 200 foot row with two tracks in the center 50 feet. That is a bit over 12 acres per mile. That will be expensive real estate in LA, Bakersfield, Fresno and up the Peninsula to the City. If built at grade then your crossover notion is good.
I think politically it would be easier to sell a 50 foot row and elevated construction with "T" shaped concrete supports. This would look similar to the double track monorail in downtown Seattle. Cost for this vs. wider row would depend on tradeoff of elevated structure costs vs real estate of course.
The freight railroads are not going to destroy their business for HSR, and as a matter of public policy it would be collosally stupid to ask/expect them to do so. Of course we have lots of incredibly dumb public policys so anything is possible.
PNWRMNM Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac
Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more.
MAC: DON: I have to wonder if a concrete barrier much like what divides many interstate lanes will mitigate this concern. A slide fence type detector on top of the median might be the way to go?
Those concrete higway dividers will resist low angle impacts by cars and trucks just fine. Hit at 60 to 90 degrees by 250,000 pounds of flying car body, I would stand no closer behind a highway barrier than I would without one. Make it solid concrete 12'x12' square maybe you have something that will work 95% of the time at 50' from the freight main.
A slide fence is a signaling device, not a rock catcher. I do not know what you expect it to do.
Paul M. "You are not going to go a constant 220 MPH endpoint-to-endpoint. You need time to accelerate and brake the train, you are going to have restricted speed in the urban areas. As to the CO2 saving that are in excess of the CO2 output of a fuel-efficient modern car -- just simply made up."
http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf
Maybe yes, and then again maybe not.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Paul M. "You are not going to go a constant 220 MPH endpoint-to-endpoint. You need time to accelerate and brake the train, you are going to have restricted speed in the urban areas. As to the CO2 saving that are in excess of the CO2 output of a fuel-efficient modern car -- just simply made up." http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf Maybe yes, and then again maybe not.
This is a 2006 study. I read the executive summary. Several things come to mind.
A lot has changed since 2006. Over the past 24 months the Administration announced new fuel efficiency standards for U.S. road passenger vehicles. By 2025, if they are implemented, vehicles will be much cleaner than they are today. Over time this will have a significant impact on air pollution.
Recently, Airbus and Boeing announce new airplanes (A320neo and 737MAX) that will be ready by 2016-2018 or thereabouts. They will reduce jet airplane emissions by 40+ per cent.
These two events are likely to change the inputs used for the study. Moreover, my observations of the Trinity Railway Express operations, plus an analysis of the route information furnished me by DART, suggest that the environmental advantages attainable by most transport modes are less than the laboratory results suggest.
Studies citing the benefits of one mode of transport over another or vice versa are frequently based on lab assumptions that don't square with field operations. Actual load factors vs. pro-forma load factors, for example, can have a dramatic impact on real world results.
On the TRE, for example, the average load factor is approximately 33 per cent, ranging from a high of nearly 85 per cent during rush hours to less than 10 per cent for early morning and late evening operations. The rush hour trains may be fuel efficient, i.e. burn per seat mile. But the off peak operations don't appear to deliver the same benefits. Moreover, each TRE run includes a 25 minute layover in Dallas and a 25 minute layover in Fort Worth. During these layovers, the engines (Tier 1) continue to pump out pollutants. I wonder if these operating conditions are factored into the studies?
blue streak 1 PNWRMNM: Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac MAC: DON: I have to wonder if a concrete barrier much like what divides many interstate lanes will mitigate this concern. A slide fence type detector on top of the median might be the way to go?
PNWRMNM: Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac
I like the slide fence. Concrete would be an expensive solution to a small problem. That, or some other mechanism to alert the high speed train that its right of way may have been violated. Something as simple as the dispatcher being able to drop the signal in the face of the high speed train. There are a zillion "what ifs" that could cause trouble for high speed trains. A freight train derailment scattering itself across the landscape without there being time to stop the approaching high speed train would be pretty rare event. It's a pretty rare event in the freight railroading world. In fact, I can't think of a major wreck that had one train running into a major derailment - even on busy double track.
I agree it is a rare event, but probably among the highest consequence events for the HSR train and passengers.
I seem to recall that CSX and Metro had one of this type of Ax in Maryland a few years ago. Look at the consequences of one head on collision involving a ***** comunter train in California four years or so ago. My point is HSR is all pain and no gain for the freight carriers. They will not play.
PNWRMNM Don, I agree it is a rare event, but probably among the highest consequence events for the HSR train and passengers. I seem to recall that CSX and Metro had one of this type of Ax in Maryland a few years ago. Look at the consequences of one head on collision involving a ***** comunter train in California four years or so ago. My point is HSR is all pain and no gain for the freight carriers. They will not play. Mac
oltmannd They will play...but not for free.
They will play...but not for free.
In the "higher speed" or "more frequency cases" I agree and we are seeing it already.
My statemet was in the context of 220 MPH true HSR which is not just incompatible, but grossly incompatible, with a 40-60 MPH freight operation. I can see no gain(reason) for the railroads to give them cause to even think about involving their asset base in that undertaking.
PNWRMNM oltmannd: They will play...but not for free. Don, In the "higher speed" or "more frequency cases" I agree and we are seeing it already. My statemet was in the context of 220 MPH true HSR which is not just incompatible, but grossly incompatible, with a 40-60 MPH freight operation. I can see no gain(reason) for the railroads to give them cause to even think about involving their asset base in that undertaking. Mac
oltmannd: They will play...but not for free.
Yes. Agree. There is no way a 220mph (or even a 150 mph) train should share track - other than in terminal areas, for short stretches, at greatly reduced speeds. But, to say a dedicated passenger track can't be built 100' from the frt RR.....I dunno. The frt RRs might not even have a say in it. Might be better for them politically if they looked like the "good guy" rather than an obstructionist.
The frt RRs can safely stand pat now because the speed and direction of this whole CHSR thing looks like it might wind up being a very expensive, nowhere to nowhere, 100 mile test track.
The thing that bugs me the most about projects like this isn't the money being spent, but how slowly things get done once the money is allocated. A sure way to kill any return on a project is to stretch out the time from "go" to when the revenue starts flowing in. With these multi-layer gov't projects, nobody seems to care a whit if it takes 2 years or 10 to get something done.
A good example would be those ALP45 locomotives for NJT. Are they going to test them forever? Or, do they have any plans to actually run them this century. I'm sure a good chunk of the money for them is already out the door. Sheesh. What's to know? Do they go? Do they stop? Do they ride safely? DONE!
If the federal government is in any way involved in a rail project you can count on ten years and half the project money being spent on consultants doing the paperwork before the first shovel full of dirt is moved.
Mac: "Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. "
One would hope the freight rails could run safely enough to not need 100' of space because if they do there are a lot of neighborhoods in constant danger.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.